intensity (Fig. 3B). These results further support
the notion that elevated trawling effort in MPAs
negatively affects sensitive species and ecological
values and is thus conflicting with IUCN criteria.
These data demonstrate that simply designat-
ing areas as MPAs has little benefit for those
species that require protection the most. That
most major EU MPA types exhibit high trawling
intensity (Fig. 1D and fig. S2) and do not address
industrial fishing (table S2) leaves protected zones
vulnerable to fishing effort aggregation and asso-
ciated biodiversity impacts documented here. Our
finding that 59% of studied MPAs are fished in-
dustrially exceeds recently documented shortfallson land, where 33% of protected areas are ex-
posed to undue human pressures ( 2 ). A sectoral
approach in which marine conservation mea-
sures are implemented by EU member states,
but fisheries are managed by a Common Fish-
eries Policy, may drive this apparent disconnect.
Last, the lack of transparent international MPA
standards may further exacerbate this; we found
that of 727 EU MPAs studied here, >50% do not
report a management plan, >90% are not clas-
sified according to IUCN criteria, and >99% have
no information on no-take areas, according to
the World Database on Protected Areas. We sug-
gest that better reporting and independent vet-
ting of MPA standards is needed to assess the
true value of the world’s increasing MPA coverage.
Our results suggest that much of the EU’sspa-
tially impressive MPA network is being affected
more heavily than nonprotected areas by indus-
trial fishing and, as such, provides a false sense
of security about positive conservation actions
being taken. This is not an isolated occurrence,
as data from terrestrial protected areas ( 2 ) and
marine case studies from elsewhere suggest
( 20 , 21 ). Hence, internationally agreed-upon
conservation targets under the Convention on
Biological Diversity might be undermined by
increasing human pressure, both on land and in
the sea. Considerable work remains to be done to
improve MPA policy, to develop and enforce min-
imum standards for MPA designation and clas-
sification, and to make MPA regulations and
management stronger and more transparent.Dureuilet al.,Science 362 , 1403–1407 (2018) 21 December 2018 3of4
Fig. 2. Abundance of threatened species
in relation to MPAs.Proportional scientific survey
catch per unit effort is given for
each elasmobranch species inside versus
outside MPAs. The sample size for each
species is given in brackets. Colors represent
the IUCN Red List status per species.
CR, critically endangered; EN, endangered;
VU, vulnerable; NT, near threatened;
LC, least concern.x
Inside MPAs Outside MPAsVelvet Belly (n = 27144)Thorny Skate (n = 22134)Spotted Skate (n = 41499)Small Spotted Catshark (n = 749993)
Cuckoo Skate (n = 30181)Blackmouth Catshark (n = 217878)Undulate Skate (n = 618)Thornback Skate (n = 29807)Starry Smoothhound (n = 17873)Smalleyed Skate (n = 1883)Nursehound (n = 5004)Blonde Skate (n = 3082)Atlantic Sawtail Catshark (n = 5338)Tope Shark (n = 2212)Shagreen Skate (n = 799)Common Stingray (n = 428)Spiny Dogfish (n = 72910)Sandy Skate (n = 970)Birdbeak Dogfish (n = 493)Common Skate (n = 6707)1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Proportional abundance indexIUCN CR EN VU NT LCTable 1. Commercial trawling effort and elasmobranch catch from research surveys inside
and outside of MPAs.Commercial trawling is given in hours for the year 2017. Grid cells
encompass 0.01° longitude by 0.01° latitude. Research catch from scientific surveys is given for the
years 1997 to 2016 in total number of elasmobranch specimens per 60-min haul duration. The
abundance index is given as normalized total multispecies catch per unit effort (msCPUE).
Area (square kilometers) and commercial trawling hours for MPAs were calculated by subtracting
the nonprotected area or hours from the total study area or hours, to avoid multiple counts for
MPA types whose areas overlap.Outside MPAs Inside MPAs Total study area
Commercial trawling hours.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................848,703 227,718 1,0764,21
Area (km.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................^2 ) 1,063,533 206,674 1,270,207
Number of 0.01° cells commercially trawled.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................335,167 57,085 392,252
Commercially trawled area (km.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................^2 ) 252,886 43,812 296,698
Commercial trawling (hour km.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................−^2 ) 0.80 1.10 0.85
Commercial trawling (hour 0.01° cell.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................−^1 ) 2.53 3.99 2.74
Commercial trawling (hour km.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................−^2 trawled area) 3.56 5.20 3.63
Research catch (number of elasmobranchs).....................................................................................................................................................................................................................1,142,533 94,419 1,236,952
Research effort (number of hauls).....................................................................................................................................................................................................................25,092 4,850 29,942
Total research catch per haul.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................45.53 19.47 41.31
Abundance index (msCPUE).....................................................................................................................................................................................................................15.76 12.70 28.46RESEARCH | REPORT
on December 20, 2018^http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from